Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, August 07, 2025

08/07 Links Pt2: Mother of Israeli Hostage Delivers Searing Message to Hamas Apologists; Israel vs. New York Times; Israel’s largest gas deal: $35 billion export deal with Egypt

From Ian:

Dave Rich: Ends and Means

There is a growing campaign against the proscription of Palestine Action, the group that used organised criminality to pursue its anti-Israel politics until they were banned as a terrorist group by the Home Secretary last month.

The latest statement in their support is a letter to the Guardian (where else?) by a predictable list of academics and veteran activists. It includes this revealing sentence:
We fully share the aim of ending the flow of weapons from Britain to Israel and the belief that all participants in the pro-Palestine movement should be free to make our own decisions about how best to achieve that goal.

This kind of thinking, with no qualifications or restrictions, could justify Elias Rodriguez shooting dead Sarah Milgim and Yaron Lischinsky outside the Jewish Museum in Washington D.C. in May. Rodriguez was a participant in the pro-Palestinian movement, and he made his own decision that shooting dead two people leaving a Jewish community event was the best way to achieve his goal. He even shouted “Free Palestine” when he did it. And he isn’t the only example.

I hope the signatories of the Guardian letter would agree that this was terrorism, but who knows? That sentence could be read as justifying the use of violence to achieve a political goal, which serves as a decent shorthand definition of terrorism anyway. Rodriguez has been glorified and his political manifesto shared by plenty of people and organisations in the pro-Palestinian movement, including Unity of Fields, an American group that used to be Palestine Action U.S., so it isn’t too far-fetched to think there will be similar attacks in future.

The Guardian letter also claims that proscribing Palestine Action “represents an attack both on the entire pro-Palestine movement and on fundamental freedoms of expression, association, assembly and protest.” This is nonsense. Palestine Action’s entire approach was to use criminal methods to achieve a political goal. Their activists set out to smash up buildings and cover them in paint. If they gained entry, they smashed up the offices and equipment as well. This criminal modus operandi was not an add-on, or an occasional by-product: it was the whole point. It shouldn’t need saying, but there is no automatic freedom to break the law.

Mother of Israeli Hostage Delivers Searing Message to Hamas Apologists

Galia David has viewed the horrifying footage of her emaciated son being forced to dig his own grave in the terror tunnels of Gaza - an image that went around the world. She had already endured nearly two years of unimaginable torment after Evyatar was kidnapped from the Nova festival with his best friend, Guy Gilboa-Dalal.

Both 24-year-olds spent their first weeks of captivity bound hand and foot with bags over their heads, blood dripping from their wounded limbs. In February, Hamas cruelly filmed them watching other hostages released, and then returned them to the tunnels.

"He looked like a skeleton," Galia tells the Daily Mail. "It is sadistic torture." Today she bravely speaks out for the first time to remind the international community "who here is cruel." "I want everyone in the world to see this image, to know what Hamas terrorists are doing....I want each person to stop and think for a moment: What if this were your son or brother? What would you do?"

Guy's father, Ilan Dalal, furious at Britain's decision to follow France in pushing for Palestinian statehood, addressed Sir Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron directly. "Because of you there wasn't an agreement to bring our children home, and you caused the war in Gaza to continue."

Guy's mother, Meirav, said, "I am sick of this hypocrisy of the world. People are simply bleeding hearts, and they don't grasp what's happening. And my son and Evyatar are rotting in the tunnels, with other hostages, which is insane."

Hostage families launch Gaza flotilla demanding ceasefire and return deal

Families of Israeli hostages held in Gaza launched a flotilla off the coast of southern Israel on Thursday morning in a dramatic plea for a ceasefire and an agreement to bring their loved ones home.

The convoy of 11 boats, organised by the Hostages and Missing Families Forum, departed from the Ashkelon marina and sailed toward the closest safe point near Gaza’s maritime border – stopping short of the coastline due to the risk of rocket fire and the ongoing Israeli naval blockade.

Dubbed “Shayetet 50” (Hebrew for flotilla), the action aims to draw attention to the 50 hostages believed to remain in Hamas captivity nearly two years after they were abducted on 7 October, 2023.

“We will sail from Ashkelon and Ashdod toward the maritime border with the Gaza Strip in a desperate cry: ‘Bring our children home before it’s too late,’” a Forum spokesperson said. “The people of Israel are with us. The people of Israel are with the hostages.”

Three boats carried family members and journalists, while others displayed yellow flags and banners calling for a deal. As they neared the maritime limit, relatives broadcast messages over megaphones, sent out symbolic mayday calls, and dropped floating buoys into the water bearing the names of hostages.

“We are sailing to cry out on behalf of our loved ones, held captive by a murderous terrorist organisation,” the Forum said. “The recent statements about conquering Gaza and escalating the fighting put them at immediate risk of death or disappearance.”

08/07 Links Pt1: Israel to take control of Gaza, then hand it to Arab forces; Feeding the Enemy; The Macron-Starmer delusional disorder; Boris: Taiwan has better claim to statehood than Palestine

From Ian:

Feeding the Enemy

Israel is not starving Gaza. Any claim to the contrary is mendacious propaganda. That said, Israel did create the situation that gave rise to the current avoidable crisis, which it has badly mishandled, to boot. It is not too late, however, to course-correct and resume focus on the mission of defeating Hamas.

Here are the facts: Enough food enters Gaza. Pockets with shortage are the result of two things: the United Nations not relinquishing control to the American Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), and Hamas’ war strategy of increasing its own population’s suffering to put international pressure on Israel—confident in the press’ willful cooperation.

Israel’s original plan at the end of the long second cease-fire in March would have denied Hamas the ability to execute this strategy. The plan was to break Hamas’ control over Gaza’s population by breaking its control of the aid entering the strip. The IDF was to divide Gaza into discrete areas, isolating each one while providing it with a humanitarian corridor to enable civilians to leave combat zones and move south to temporary accommodation in safe sanctuaries, which is what the IDF had already done before the second cease-fire (during which many evacuated Gazans returned). Meanwhile, the American GHF was to distribute food in these sanctuaries. It would do so in family packages, rather than through wholesale supply, which invites middlemen. More than 100 million such meals were distributed by GHF in the past two months.

After the evacuations, any remaining person in the combat zones would be considered a combatant. A siege would be applied until all combatants surrendered and gave up the hostages they held. It’s important to note that a siege is a legal means of war sanctioned by international law and authorized by the U.S. Department of Defense Law of War Manual (2015), even when applied to a civilian population in certain cases. However, the IDF plan was to implement it only after civilians were safely evacuated.

Implementing the original plan will surely result in opprobrium from a hypocritical international community, but at least it will succeed and end the war.

But Israel did not execute this plan. Instead, it concentrated on the effort to reach a hostage deal while attempting to prove its morality to the world. Subjecting itself to standards far stricter than international law requires, the IDF opted for half measures and did not move the population to designated safe zones to supply them with food. Instead, fearing a humanitarian crisis, the IDF began sending aid to pockets where Hamas has been using the population and the hostages as human shields to create safe havens for itself. In so doing, Israel became the first country in the history of warfare to assume responsibility for feeding the enemy population. It thus relieved Hamas of responsibility instead of insisting that the group surrender and release the hostages. So far from scoring points for morality, Israel dug itself into a hole, and still it was blamed for the crisis that Hamas and the United Nations have manufactured.

Seth Mandel: Hamas Is a Terrible Employer

Amid all the talk of Hamas stealing food aid, it’s worth also noting that Hamas takes a variety of other regular actions that exacerbate poverty and food insecurity in the enclave. Hamas is the government of Gaza, and it is an extractive entity: It takes what Gaza makes (or gets).

The BBC, to its credit, today covers the issue of Hamas’s weakness. Its reporting expands on what we know to include the wider context of what Hamas is still able to do and how it is able to do it.

For example, the BBC spoke to a few Hamasniks who received payments of $300 in the past week. That puts them “among tens of thousands of employees who have continued to receive a maximum of just over 20% of their pre-war salary every 10 weeks.”

Not only are they on minimal salaries, but their money has been devalued by inflation, which Hamas itself is responsible for. Food costs more because Hamas is hoarding it and reselling it at high prices while simultaneously cutting its ranks’ pay.

There’s another hidden tax, too. The Wall Street Journal reported in April on the sorry physical condition of cash in Gaza. In response, money-patchers have cropped up, repairing bills for a fee. But according to the BBC’s latest reporting, it’s too late to save a lot of that cash.

“I received 1,000 shekels (about $300) in worn-out banknotes — no trader would accept them,” one employee told the outlet. “Only 200 shekels were usable — the rest, I honestly don’t know what to do with.”

So in reality, instead of getting paid one-fifth of their salary, the fighters are receiving (at least in instances such as the above) one-fifth of one-fifth of their salaries.

How do they even get paid? That has become a complicated task thanks to the IDF’s targeting of key nodes in Hamas’s financial team. To even get the (mostly ragged) bills, Hamas employees have to channel their inner secret agent. First they receive an encrypted message to meet someone for tea at a specific time and place. Once there, they will be approached by someone with an envelope. The handoff is made in silence and the two go their separate ways.

Says one Hamas bureaucrat: “Every time I go to pick up my salary, I say goodbye to my wife and children. I know that I may not return.”

Federal Investigators Compile Evidence of Systematic Hamas Aid Theft, Undercutting Leaked USAID 'Report'

The chief oversight body responsible for tracking American foreign assistance is compiling evidence that Hamas systematically steals U.N. aid in Gaza, including by placing terrorist operatives into U.N. facilities, and conducting active investigations into the issue, undercutting a recently leaked U.S. Agency for International Development "report" that found no evidence of such theft.

The investigations center on occasions in which Hamas "commandeered U.N. aid trucks," embedded terrorist operatives in "U.N. agencies or at U.N. facilities," and ensured humanitarian goods were "directly delivered to Hamas officials," senior U.S. officials and congressional staffers briefed on the issue told the Washington Free Beacon. The USAID inspector general's office has obtained evidence of those practices and is investigating "credible allegations of Hamas interference, diversion, and theft of humanitarian aid in Gaza," according to a memo on the inspector general's "Gaza-related oversight work" that was transmitted to Congress and obtained by the Free Beacon.

Though the Trump administration dissolved USAID itself earlier this year, USAID's inspector general's office is an independent entity that Congress established in 1980 to provide oversight of U.S. foreign aid programs. That office remains in place as its investigators probe "diversion, fraud, product substitution, smuggling, and other misconduct compromising lifesaving humanitarian assistance intended for civilians in Gaza," the memo states.

Those probes—and the evidence of widespread Hamas aid theft informing them—stand in stark contrast to an internal USAID "report" that was leaked to Reuters in late July. It found "no evidence of systematic theft by the Palestinian militant group Hamas of U.S.-funded humanitarian supplies," the outlet reported.

That report was not conducted by USAID's inspector general but rather by career USAID staffers, who "completed" it in late June, days before the Trump administration formally shut down the agency. The staffers based their report on official information from U.N. agencies, senior U.S. officials familiar with it told the Free Beacon. The inspector general probes, by contrast, are based on information from a variety of sources that include "aid workers and other whistleblowers on the ground who may not feel comfortable reporting through their employers' reporting chain due to fear of retaliation," according to a source familiar with the office's operations.

One former investigator in the inspector general's office said he "directly observed" how Hamas manipulates aid channels in Gaza, including "multiple cases where aid was clearly not reaching its intended targets, and in many cases, being diverted to hostile actors."

The inspector general has opened at least four active audits into USAID's mismanagement in Gaza.

Culture That Made Jews Sit Through Weekly Anti-Jewish Sermons Calls Israel Intolerant (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook and Substack pages.

Rome, August 7 - Religious leaders all over the Christian world that, for centuries, confined its Jews to ghettos and coerced them into attending Sunday church-service diatribes deeming them irredeemably perfidious, deicidal incorrigibles, continued this week to issue their longstanding characterization of Zionism and the state it founded as "Apartheid" and "racist."

Bishops, archbishops, and cardinals in the Roman Catholic Church, as well as numerous outspoken non-Catholic congregational figures, criticized Israel from their pulpits and keyboards, for mistreating the downtrodden Palestinians and committing human rights violations such as restricting Palestinian movement under the pretext of "security." Here in Rome, the papal authorities of the sixteenth century instituted a ghetto for the city's Jews, imposing a curfew and surrounding the squalid, flood-prone neighborhood with churches, monasteries, and convents where, once a week, Jews were forced to sit and endure fiery sermons denouncing them as devil-spawn and Christ-killers.

The accusations also included inversions of the hostage situation that unfolded in the Gaza Strip, with depictions of murderous and violent Palestinians in Israeli prisons as "hostages." That terminology unintentionally invoked the policy of those Christian institutions surrounding the ghetto to kidnap Jewish children and secret them away in monasteries and convents to raise them as Catholics.

Modern instantiations of earlier Christian treatment of Jews have also taken the form of the blood libel, a time-honored medieval Christian tradition that accuses Jews of making matza with the blood of a slain Christian child, resulting in massacres that local Christian leaders egged on; in its modern form, those religious leaders accuse Israel of starving the manifestly-still-overfed Gazans, or of killing Palestinian innocents who, if the incidents even occurred, died as a result of Hamas violence or Hamas use of those innocents as human shields - accusations that create a permission structure for even non-fighters to harm Jews anywhere in the world, and believe that in so doing they promote justice and righteousness.

Pope Leo XIV and his predecessor Francis - whose Renaissance predecessors directly issued the policies discriminating against the Jews of Rome - have both drawn rhetorical equivalence between brutal Palestinian terrorism and necessary Israeli measures to prevent or mitigate terrorism, calling on Jews to turn the other cheek as Christians have never done, despite Jesus urging his followers to do so in the Sermon on the Mount.

They have also urged an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, without regard for the fate of the Israelis held hostage there, a move that analysts says reflects a longstanding Christian tradition to sacrifice Jews to achieve higher goals, such as during massacres associated with the Crusades.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

From Globes:

The biggest gas export deal ever signed in Israel, for 22% of the Leviathan field, will triple the amount of gas sold to Egypt.

The Leviathan partners have reported signing the biggest-ever gas export deal to sell 130 billion cubic meters (BCM) of gas to Egypt for $35 billion. The deal involves 22% of the entire Leviathan gas field and 13% of all Israel's natural gas reserves.

The deal follows up the 2019 agreement in which 19 BCM of gas was sold to and in effect triples the amount of gas being exported to Egypt. The Leviathan partners said that the deal paves the way for expanding production.

I guess Egypt isn't as "pro-Palestine" as the keffiyeh-clad students who like to scrawl "Free Palestine" graffiti are.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

70% of all anti-religious hate crimes in the US are against Jews

The FBI released its 2024 hate crimes statistics. From JTA:

Hate crimes against Jews in the United States reached an all-time high in 2024, accounting for 70% of all religiously motivated hate crimes, according to FBI data released this week.

The new FBI report released Tuesday found that hate crimes against Jews accounted for over 17% of all reported hate crimes in the United States in 2024, marking a 16% rise from 1,998 anti-Jewish hate crimes in 2023 to 2,321 in 2024.

More than half of the incidents were related to vandalism, with “intimidation” the second-largest category. But about 200 were assaults of varying degrees, and 260 of the total incidents took place in synagogues.

Here is a chart of the anti-religious hate crimes listed in the FBI portal.

The only hate crime of any type that surpassed it was anti-Black racist crimes. And if you look at the proportions of Americans who are Black or Jewish, you see that Jews are five times as likely to be victims of hate crimes than Black people.

Do you still think antisemitism is not a serious problem in the US?

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Pro-disengagement demonstration in Tel Aviv

Haaretz's headline holds promise:

Two Decades After Gaza Pullout: What Haaretz Writers Saw Coming – and What We Missed Entirely

A 'hotbed of terrorism' or a place for rehabilitation and development? In August 2005, then–Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made a move that reshaped history for Palestinians and Israelis. A fierce debate unfolded in Haaretz. Who was right?

Unfortunately, while the article consistently shows how incredibly wrong Haaretz' writers are (with the exception of their token right wing writer at the time) there is no introspection whatsoever. The failure of disengagement is placed on the feet of the Palestinians as if no one knew ahead of time how they were likely to act. And this misplaced optimism of a Gaza paradise is part of what led to October 7.

Their spectacularly wrong predictions are worth revisiting to show how irrelevant Haaretz was then, and remains now with largely the same writers.

In late August 2005, after the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip was completed, Haaretz columnist Nehemia Shtrasler published an article brimming with optimism.
In its first part he assailed then-resigning finance minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the "intimidation campaign" he had been waging since the disengagement began – a campaign filled with "horror-filled scenarios" warning that "an Islamic terror base was being built in Gaza, with Hamas growing in strength," and that "missiles would be launched at all Israeli cities from terror bases we were allowing Islamist terrorists to build in Gaza."
Shtrasler dismissed these warnings. "Fear is one of the most important components in elections. When 'the expert' on terrorism says missiles will be launched, who can argue? Once the public is sufficiently frightened, it will search for a person who can stop terrorism, wipe out Hamas and save us from the missile threat. Netanyahu doesn't want missiles to fall on Israel, God forbid. He just wants power through the ballot box to deal with the danger."

To counter the former and future prime minister's doomsday prophecies, Shtrasler turned to the Palestinians. "Here the Palestinians have an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone: they can totally belie Netanyahu's prophecy and also teach Israel an important lesson," he wrote, continuing with an optimistic vision for Gaza's future.
"If the Palestinian Authority and Hamas understand the Israeli public's heart, they must turn Gaza into the most peaceful place in the world, the most hospitable. No more threats, snipers, terror attacks, suicide bombings, and, obviously, no missiles launched at Israel's cities."
"Instead, they should rush to fill Gaza's beaches with a row of hummus and fish restaurants, allowing easy, welcoming access to Israelis visiting Gaza. If they do this, they'll quickly discover the wanderlust and purchasing power of the ordinary Israeli, including Likud members," he wrote.

He goes on from there to paint a utopia where trade flourishes between Israel and Gaza, where Gulf Arabs invest in Gaza and everything but rainbows and unicorns are seen throughout Gaza.

But he wasn't the only one:

Analyst Danny Rubinstein also saw the situation with rose-tinted glasses. In an article he wrote at the time, he said: "There are definitely chances for calm in the Gaza Strip," adding that "Hamas spokespeople are making every effort to reassure the public in Gaza, as well as assuring Fatah and the Palestinian Authority leadership that they have no intention of provoking them, and certainly not to try to replace Mahmoud Abbas' regime and his people.
"It seems that in Hamas – as in among the Palestinian public – there is a wish to begin rehabilitating and rebuilding Gaza… the impression is that Palestinian leaders are trying to prove that the Palestinian people can build an orderly and effective government, and that Gaza can serve as a model."

And:

Analyst Ari Shavit: "Never before have the Palestinians ruled their own bit of land. Never before have the Palestinians not lived under occupation. Thus now, following the end of the disengagement, they have attained what they never had before. After hundreds of years of subservience to Turkish foreign rule and British foreign rule and Egyptian and Jordanian and Israeli foreign rule, some 1.5 million Palestinians have finally gained self-rule… Ironically, it was Sharon who gave so many of them what Haj Amin al-Husseini and Gamal Abdel Nasser and Yasser Arafat did not give them: liberty. These days of September 2005 are foundational moments in the history of the Palestinian people."

Haaretz' token right wing fanatic employed purely for the fiction that the newspaper is balanced was eerily accurate:

On the other side of the divide were the doomsayers. Among the most prominent was former defense minister Moshe Arens. In July, before the withdrawal, he warned that "Gaza will be a hotbed of terror. Ashkelon will be within range of Qassam rockets…a terrorist enclave outside our control will place Israel under daily threat…it appears we're heading in the wrong direction," he wrote.
In September, after the withdrawal, Arens wrote: "Sharon's plan is hailed around the world as a bold and daring move. The Nobel Prize committee is probably preparing the relevant awards for next year. However, if – and this is the case currently – the Palestinian mini-state turns out to be a nest of terror…then Israel, after being disappointed for the thousandth time, will have to yet again contend with the challenge of delivering a decisive blow to Palestinian terrorism, recognizing that this is the essential condition for moving toward peace in the region."

Instead of pointing out its egregious misreading of the situation, the article returns to Ari Shavit as being the most clearheaded:

Shavit went on to heap criticism on the neighboring nation. "The Palestinians are trying to blur this decisive fact. They are behaving as if nothing has happened. They continue to use the old, anachronistic rhetoric that has become so nauseatingly familiar. They continue to claim that the Israeli withdrawal is incomplete and insufficient. They continue to declare that the struggle will continue until every bit of Palestinian land has been liberated. And even worse: by torching the synagogues and storming the Philadelphi route, they are signaling that they do not intend to behave as a responsible state.

But that was written in September, after the disengagement, after Hamas resumed rocket fire. This was not an accurate prediction but an early realization that the rosy predictions were all wrong.

This article should have been an opportunity for Haaretz to admit its mistakes and apologize for them. It doesn't spell out what its headline promises - "what we missed entirely."

By refusing to acknowledge that their naïveté helped pave the road to October 7, Haaretz confirms what we've all known for a long time: it hasn't learned a thing in twenty years – and doesn’t want to.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

When most of us think about how Jews were thought of in the West in the 18th century, we usually think that they are considered greedy, cunning and duplicitous - but not violent.

But for a few decades in the mid-1700s, the stereotype of the Jews included the idea of a violent Jew who was a real threat to British citizens.

Last year I explored the idea within England that if Jews were allowed to become full citizens, they would impose circumcision on the hapless Christians. This was not just satire: a prominent rabbi was forced to rebut that rumor, so apparently it had been taken seriously.

I just found a letter to the London Public Advertiser newspaper in August 1775, almost exactly 250 years ago. The letter assumes that Jews are naturally violent.

My Plan then, Sir, is to embody the Jews, and appoint a young Orator of very forcible Powers their Colonel Commandant. It is unnecessary to name him, as all who have read the Heroic Epistle to Sir William ____ will recollect the humorous Description of his being qualified for being put at the Head of this Army of Hebrews.

I do not believe that the Ministry will allow the Golden Calf to be carried over to Boston, as they have, we are told, constant Occasion for that at home; but the Jews may be certainly Appeared from this Country and a most terrific Appearance they would make among the Oliverian Puritans on the other Side of the Atlantic. I would have them armed with monstrous Knives, like that which Macklin draws forth when he plays Shylock; and, as a Friend of mine very well observed, the Terror of Circumcision would affect the Colonists still more than that of Scalping.

In this Reign it is not a little remarkable that there is at least an Appearance of Jewish Influence, though there has been such a prodigious Noise about Scotch Influence, that I do not remember that any of our most anxious Patriots have ever taken Notice of it. We find a County in England represented by a Sir Joshua Reynolds, a Sir Elijah Impey, a Sir Noah Thomas? Nay, who is it that prints the Public Advertiser itself? Henry Sampson Woodfall.

Let us then make a fair Trial of what the Israelites can do. Methinks I see their Colonel Commandant kissing Hands upon his Promotion, and the First Lord of the Treasury receiving him with open Arms, chuckling him under the froward Chin, and addressing him with a Leer of Satisfaction in the Words of Sir Archy Macfarlane, "My bon Girgashite."

Methinks I hear the horrid Sound of their Shootings upon the American Shores, and feel the barrelled Rioters running before them; and if the Theory of Mr. Adair in his late History be true, that the North American Indians are Jews, with what Alacrity will they come to the Aid of their own Kindred? That we shall have our unruly Descendants between two Fires, and Dr. Franklin's Electrified Puppets of Countrymen, shall be no better than a Will o' the Wisp.

The writer bases his idea of the violent Jew on the performance of Charles Macklin in The Merchant of Venice, where the Jew Shylock was portrayed as a knife-wielding violent man beyond Shakespeare's text. This, together with the rumors of forced circumcision that accompanied opposition to the Jew Act of 1753, combined to create an entirely new stereotype of the Jew not as a physically weak but crafty manipulator but as an an angry and violent figure who threatens the Christians.

And this stereotype was enough for the writer to craft his satirical plan to ship all British Jews to America, where they can fight the American rioters from the Boston Tea Party and can partner with the supposedly Jewish indigenous tribes against the Americans.

It is a minor footnote in the history of antisemitism, but it shows how the hate has always been disconnected with how Jews actually act. If people fear something, the Jews will always end up being accused of being the threat.

While the image of the "violent Jew" al but disappeared in the subsequent two centuries, once the state of Israel was reborn it is unsurprising that this stereotype has become fashionable again.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

08/06 Links Pt2: Khalil: 'We Couldn't Avoid' Committing October 7 Massacre; AP Writes Puff Piece on Hezbollah 'Victims' of Israeli Pager Attack; The Vile Hypocrisy Of Jew Hatred

From Ian:

Meet the Zyklon B heiress who is sailing to Gaza

Sometimes something so perfect happens you find yourself Googling furiously to make sure it’s really true. The news that one Marlene Engelhorn from Austria is joining the next flotilla to Gaza is one such story. For Ms Engelhorn is an heiress of a German industrial dynasty that profited from the production of Zyklon B, the cyanide that was used to gas and slaughter millions of Jews during the Holocaust. Her family profited from the Nazi extermination of the Jewish people and now she rages against the Jewish State – who was it who said history doesn’t repeat itself but it sometimes rhymes?

Ms Engelhorn inherited $27.1million from her family’s coffers. And some of that generational wealth has pretty disgusting origins. She is a descendant of Friedrich Engelhorn, who founded the German chemicals giant, BASF. In the 1920s, BASF merged with IG Farben. Some readers may have heard of that latter chemical conglomerate – its name lives in infamy as the producer of the poisonous gas the Nazis used to try to wipe the Jews from the face of the Earth. When her grandmother died in 2022, Ms Engelhorn got millions of Euros from this dynasty with a dark history.

And now she keeps herself busy by pontificating about the Jewish State. She’s been a key figure in Europe’s anti-Israel protests and next month she’ll set sail on the latest watery virtue-signal headed to Gaza to expose Israel’s ‘genocide’. Hen Mazzig put it best: so this is a ‘white, privileged, nepo baby’ whose family wealth comes in part from Nazi Germany’s ‘mass murder of Jews’ and she is ‘also anti-Israel’? ‘I did not see that coming’, he quipped, with excellent sarcasm.

Look, I am not for one minute suggesting Ms Engelhorn inherited her ancestors’ Nazi tendencies as well as their cash. And she is far from the first privileged white lady, or even the first nepo baby, to wang on morning, noon and night about the wickedness of Israel. The ‘pro-Palestine’ movement is lousy with aristocrats and leftists from Old Money and the overeducated middle classes who believe Israel is committing genocide as fervently as they believe you can have a todger and be a lesbian. Britain is especially bad. We’re overrun with Posh Twats for Palestine. Honestly, not since the days of Unity Mitford have I heard so many cut-glass voices hold forth on the ‘Jewish problem’.

And yet, you know what? If my forebears had been involved in the Nazis’ attempted annihilation of the Jews, I would simply sit out the Israel issue. I’d hold my tongue on the Jewish State. I certainly would not board a boat, Greta-style, and sail with other smug, preening, moneyed Europeans to point a bony finger of judgement at the Jewish nation for its ‘genocide, apartheid and illegal occupation’. Israel recently suffered a fascistic assault by a genocidal terror group devoted to slaughtering Jews, and now here comes a lady from Austria whose family profited from the Nazi regime’s industrialised slaughter of Jews? Think about the optics, Marlene.

Former Harvard Kennedy School Official Accused of Aiding Hamas Hides in Palestinian Territories To Avoid Summons

Lawyers representing the family members of nearly 200 Oct. 7 massacre victims believe that a former Harvard University official accused of aiding Hamas ahead of the attack is hiding in Palestinian territories to avoid a court summons.

The family members sued Bashar Masri, a Palestinian-American businessman, in April, calling his Gaza properties "crucial elements in Hamas’s attack plan." They said the terror group used them to store and launch rockets at Israel, probe the border fence, host Hamas leadership and foot soldiers, train Hamas naval commandos, and construct and conceal attack tunnels. The suit also alleges that Masri appointed "an individual closely tied to Hamas" to chair one of his Palestinian real estate companies just before Oct. 7.

Masri had been living in the United States and served on the dean’s council at Harvard Kennedy School. But he resigned from that post just days after the suit was filed, and efforts to track him down since then have proven fruitless.

"Masri is likely resident in the Palestinian Territories, but without any physical address known to Plaintiffs," lawyers wrote in a Friday court filing. They pointed to his frequent travel to Israel and interviews he’s given in the Jewish state.

"If there were any real suspicions against me, my friend, I’d at least have been interrogated," Masri told Yediot Ahronot, according to a translation by the plaintiffs filed on June 25. "If there were proof, I wouldn’t be sitting in Tel Aviv now chatting with you."

Since he's proven elusive, the lawyers proposed publishing the complaint and summons in Yediot Ahronot, an Israeli publication he clearly reads. They also requested using other "alternative means" such as messaging his verified X, Instagram, and Facebook accounts.

And given that he's provided "multiple interviews commenting publicly" on the lawsuit's allegations, Masri is aware of the complaint, the lawyers argued in Friday's brief.

Additional court filings in recent weeks detail the lawyers’ failed attempts to reach Masri. In an affidavit filed on June 25, a servicer said they went to Masri’s Washington, D.C., residence, but a woman who answered over an intercom refused to accept the documents. When the servicer tried again roughly a week later, the same woman again answered on the intercom and identified herself as Jane Masri. She said she had divorced Bashar Masri and that he no longer lived there and claimed she was answering the call remotely from abroad.

In an April statement, the Palestinian’s office called the allegations "false" and claimed that he "unequivocally opposes violence of any kind."

But in the months leading up to the Oct. 7 attack, Masri worked with senior Hamas officials, including one who developed the terror group’s Gaza military-industrial base, the lawsuit alleges. Other Hamas leaders, including the Oct. 7 mastermind Yahya Sinwar, "regularly used [Masri’s] hotels to host public and private Hamas events."

Seth Mandel: Schumer Picks His Successor

Schumer’s betrayal is meaningful, because he came up through the most Jewish city in the world outside of Israel and insisted he be regarded as “Schumer the shomer”—Schumer the watchman, the guardian, the sentinel of his beleaguered people. As Liel Liebowitz writes brilliantly in the May issue of COMMENTARY, Schumer has unburdened himself of the weight of communal responsibility.

Schatz never had any such pretensions, so Senate Democrats of the future will just get right to the point. No need to start off with pro-Israel platitudes, just open with the list of grievances. Schumer wanders in the desert for 40 years every time he wants to rail against Bibi Netanyahu; Schatz has Tom Friedman’s cab driver on speed dial and saves everyone the long trip.

Schumer, of course, is all in on Schatz—you barely have to change the name on the door. “Brian Schatz is not just a trusted colleague and a clear communicator—he’s a close friend and one of my most valued allies in the Senate. Over the past several months, Brian and I have worked hand-in-hand to build strong backing across the caucus, and I’m proud to endorse him for whip.”

It’s hard to know what Schumer is proudest of, regarding Schatz. Is it Schatz’s support for the Iran nuclear deal? His opposition to moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and thus recognizing the Jews’ historic capital? His vote to stop arming the Jewish state in its defensive war against the perpetrators of the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust and those who explicitly carry Hitler’s torch? His opposition to a bill that would let states choose not to contract with companies that boycott Israel? Or perhaps his overflowing self-righteousness, in which he forces himself to believe the worst about the Jewish state and then stomps around hectoring everybody to join him? All of it?

As for me, I think I may actually miss the disingenuous desert wanderings of Chuck Schumer. It’s a gesture toward a simpler time, when people at least pretended to feel bad about their poor decisions.

As for Schatz, the ultimate irony is that he replaced in the Senate Daniel Inouye—a true hero, a monumental figure, the embodiment of all that is great about America and its people. Inouye was awarded the Medal of Honor for his WWII service and was a lifelong defender of Israel and the Jewish people. With Schatz rising, the loss of Inouye stings anew.

08/06 Links Pt1: Between Illusion and Imitation: The IDF and the West’s War Dilemma; Israel has every right to finish the job in Gaza — by obliterating Hamas

From Ian:

General Yoav Gallant and John Spencer: Between Illusion and Imitation: The IDF and the West’s War Dilemma

No military is more publicly condemned today than the Israel Defense Forces. Yet behind closed doors, few are more studied. Western generals and defense officials routinely seek Israeli briefings, request access to doctrine and tactics, and pursue cooperation on training and technology. These efforts continue even as their political counterparts issue statements of moral outrage and condemnation. The contradiction reflects more than a double standard. It reveals a deeper divide between political perception and military reality, between external messaging and internal understanding, between illusion and experience.

Since the war in Gaza began, Israel has hosted dozens of foreign delegations. Military officers and defense officials observe Israeli operations firsthand. They ask technical questions about targeting processes, coordination between air and ground forces, real-time intelligence integration, and how combat units distinguish between civilians and combatants under fire. Some return weeks later to formalize cooperation on areas ranging from tunnel warfare to hostage recovery to civilian harm mitigation. Meanwhile, many of their political counterparts deliver rehearsed remarks emphasizing restraint, proportionality, and civilian protection, often with little connection to the operational context or ground realities they were just briefed on.

This is not just political inconsistency. It is strategic dissonance. War is never clean. Urban warfare against a hybrid enemy embedded in civilian areas is among the most complex challenges modern democracies will face. Yet the public discussion is often dominated by expectations of precision and perfection that no military force can guarantee. In many capitals, political performance overrides professional understanding.

In Gaza, Hamas constructed more than 300 miles of fortified tunnels beneath civilian infrastructure. It operates from hospitals, schools, and mosques by design, not necessity. Early in the war, the IDF learned a simple rule: if you want to find a tunnel, look beneath a school. If you are searching for an enemy headquarters, start under a mosque. If you suspect an arms depot, check the basement of a hospital. This is not coincidence; it is a consistent, deliberate tactic. Hamas has blocked evacuations, placed command centers inside humanitarian zones, and taken hundreds of hostages. These are not side effects of war. They are deliberate features of a strategy built to paralyze democracies, provoke condemnation, and weaponize civilian suffering. The targeting of civilians is not incidental. It is essential to Hamas’s operational concept.

Many political leaders respond by invoking past conflicts. They reference battles in Mosul, Aleppo, Fallujah, or Raqqa, assuming these comparisons provide meaningful precedent. But most of these conflicts did not involve an adversary intentionally preventing civilians from leaving combat zones. Most did not involve hundreds of hostages dispersed across a dense urban battlefield. Most involved insurgencies, not foreign-backed terror armies. Many involved military forces that did not follow the same standards of precision and accountability expected of Israel. These differences matter. Failing to account for them leads to flawed analysis and unrealistic policy prescriptions.

These dynamics are not limited to Gaza. Across the region, similar tactics are emerging. In southern Syria, the Julani regime has carried out atrocities against the Druze population while embedded within civilian areas. These acts of cruelty follow the same playbook used by Hamas. Yet few international voices draw consistent lines between them. This silence reflects another gap: the unwillingness to apply standards evenly when the political costs differ. Condemnation is directed at those who can hear it. Those who operate beyond the reach of democratic norms often face no scrutiny at all.

While calls for humanitarian concern grow louder, few political leaders press for solutions that would actually reduce civilian harm. Egypt continues to keep its border with Gaza closed, despite being the sole neighboring country uninvolved in the conflict and capable of providing immediate relief to civilians seeking safety. Evacuation routes remain blocked. Temporary refuge for civilians is politically possible but diplomatically ignored. Not a single major European government or United Nations body has mounted sustained pressure on Cairo to open the Rafah crossing or to establish a displaced persons or humanitarian zone a few kilometers into the Sinai. Instead, criticism centers on Israel, the only actor currently conducting both combat and humanitarian operations in the same battlespace. The imbalance distorts both perception and policy.

NYPost Editorial: Israel has every right to finish the job in Gaza — by obliterating Hamas

After Hamas’ repeated rejections of cease-fire deals and recently released videos of emaciated Israeli hostages, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sees only one choice: a full military occupation of Gaza.

That’s logical — with the possible serious weakness being . . . politics, both abroad and in Israel.

The Israeli security cabinet meets Thursday, reportedly to greenlight either a full occupation or at least plans for the IDF to move into or surround new territory, such as in Deir al-Balah and Gaza City.

The IDF already occupies 75% of Gaza, but has avoided areas where it believes action might endanger the lives of hostages.

But video evidence now shows Hamas abusing the hostages to death anyway. To have any hope of saving them, Israel must either 1) accept the only deal the terrorists will consider — essentially, surrender and let them keep power — or 2) move in to finish the terrorists off.

Israel would be nuts to surrender: Hamas still vows to repeat its massive Oct. 7 killing spree and continue massacring Jews until Israel is destroyed.

Finishing the job on the ground will be a huge task, but the IDF has pulled off difficult feats before.

What can seriously threaten the mission is anti-Israel political meddling by the outside world and internal pressure from hostages’ families and Netanyahu’s foes.

In Israel, some fear stepped up operations are a death warrant for the hostages.

Elsewhere, lefty ruling parties in France, the United Kingdom and Canada have already turned up the heat on Israel, with plans to reward the terrorists’ slaughter of Jews by recognizing a Palestinian state.

A top UN official calls plans to fully occupy Gaza “deeply alarming.”

Happily, the critics don’t include President Donald Trump, who says Israel’s plans are “up to Israel” to decide. Hear, hear.

Trump is concerned about hunger in Gaza and plans to expand US operations there to distribute food and supplies — a noble sentiment, but we can’t help but recall how similar relief work in Somalia in 1992 quickly led to the Black Hawk Down incident that saw 18 Americans killed.

The war in Gaza is every bit as risky.

But it could end tomorrow if Hamas stepped down, freed the hostages and left the strip.

Israel has every right to do what it must to eliminate Hamas once and for all — and anyone with any moral sense should back it to the hilt.

Prof. Kobi Michael and Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser: The Occupation of the Gaza Strip—Why?

Israel has been at war in Gaza for nearly two years. Despite inflicting significant damage on Hamas's capabilities, Hamas continues to function, both civically and militarily, as the ruling power in substantial parts of Gaza. Hamas controls the Gaza City area, western Khan Yunis, the central refugee camps, and the al-Mawasi area, where about half of the population resides.

Hamas's leadership considers sumud (steadfastness) a supreme value with religious significance that transcends national meaning. It believes that merely surviving as the dominant armed force in Gaza, even in a weakened and damaged state, constitutes a form of victory over Israel. In Hamas's view, the Oct. 7 attack was a justified action that significantly advanced its goal of Israel's destruction.

The only way to prevent Hamas's resurgence is through its complete dismantling as the effective ruling entity in Gaza. Dismantling Hamas means eliminating its capacity to function as an organized military and governmental authority. Unless Hamas is dismantled, no viable civilian alternative can emerge, and no real reconstruction process can begin. A secure reality in and around Gaza cannot be established, nor can the threats of raids into Israel and rocket fire be eliminated.

If Hamas can be dismantled through a negotiated agreement, that would be the most desirable outcome. Yet, Hamas continues in its refusal to accept a deal. An agreement based on accepting Hamas's terms for the release of all the hostages is overly optimistic. The hostages are Hamas's most valuable asset and Hamas may not be quick to release them all. It is possible that not all the hostages are in Hamas's possession. Moreover, Hamas would portray the new reality as a victory and justification for the Oct. 7 attack, further motivating its military resurgence and desire for another such attack.

The full takeover of Gaza and the establishment of a temporary military administration constitute the act of ending the war and transitioning to the phase of establishing an alternative governance model to Hamas and creating the conditions for Gaza's reconstruction to begin. The dual purpose of a military administration is to prevent Hamas's resurgence and sever its ties to the civilian population. The aim is to convince Gaza's public that Hamas will not return, thereby opening the door for new actors to assume responsibility for civilian governance.

Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.

It wasn’t a mistake when The New York Times ran a front-page photo of a skeletal 18-month-old Gazan boy and claimed he was suffering from starvation. It was a deliberate editorial choice — a lie that fit the preferred narrative: Israel is genocidal.

Even Fox News missed the point. Their headline—“NY Times' erroneous cover photo… joins series of media blunders”—called it an error, a media blunder. But this was no “oops.” It was propaganda. And the proof is in the cropping.

Let me just start with other images the media chose not to use. Photographs of Mohammed with his 3-year-old brother Joud. Both mother and brother are healthy and fed.

Any honest journalist should have immediately questioned – and reported - what we were actually seeing. 3/13 pic.twitter.com/FaUsVFsqb2
— David Collier (@mishtal) July 27, 2025

The boy’s healthy brother was edited out of the image. The Times didn’t disclose the child’s medical history until days later, after pressure from Israeli officials. Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq has cerebral palsy, hypoxemia, and a severe genetic disorder. He requires specialized nutrition and therapy—not a ceasefire.

Unlike his brother standing by his side, Muhammad Zakariya Ayyoub al-Matouq suffers from cerebral palsy.

But BBC, CNN, Daily Express, and The New York Times spread a misleading story using a picture of a sick, disabled child to promote a narrative of mass starvation in Gaza —… pic.twitter.com/UzP5PhNSvU
— Israel ישראל (@Israel) July 29, 2025

The Times eventually tacked on a note that the child had “pre-existing health problems,” but the damage was done. The image had gone viral, a global symbol of “Israeli starvation.” The Times knew what it was doing. That’s why it buried the correction in the digital story and posted it from a PR account with under 90,000 followers—not their main feed with over 55 million.

We have appended an Editors' Note to a story about Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq, a child in Gaza who was diagnosed with severe malnutrition. After publication, The Times learned that he also had pre-existing health problems. Read more below. pic.twitter.com/KGxP3b3Q2B
— NYTimes Communications (@NYTimesPR) July 29, 2025

And when real starvation did appear—this time in the form of emaciated Israeli hostages like Evyatar David and Rom Braslavski—the Times’ front page was silent. No photos. No headlines. Just a weak, secondary article headlined, “Hundreds Protest in Tel Aviv After Hostage Videos Surface From Gaza.”

Nothing about Evyatar digging his own grave. No image of Rom weeping, his ribs protruding. Nothing of the horror that millions of Israelis felt—not just a “handful” of Tel Aviv protesters.

As Yaakov Ort, a former NYT staffer, put it: “If the Times had a Jerusalem bureau that reported the thoughts, communications and actions of the vast majority of Israelis… they would have told readers that the reaction… is not fear or protest. It is horror, rage, and resolve.”

The excuse? Mohammed’s condition had worsened due to war. But as Israeli pediatrician Dr. Michal Feldon said, “I’ve been a pediatrician for 20 years and we never see kids looking like this, even very chronically ill children. When we do, we suspect abuse.” Prof. Dan Turner added, “Even patients with background diseases should not be malnourished like that.” In Gaza, it’s not just illness—it’s lack of access, lack of formula, and yes, Hamas theft of humanitarian aid.

This wasn’t bad journalism. It was anti-Jewish narrative warfare—the blood libel of our time, illustrated by a carefully framed photo and a willfully ignored truth.

Because in today’s media: a carefully staged image used to falsely accuse Israel of starvation is front-page news — but the real starvation, suffering, and desperation of Israeli hostages doesn’t make it in at all.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Earlier today I saw an interview on Quillette with Dr. Andre Oboler, the CEO of the Online Hate Prevention Institute, about online hate and what can be done about it.

I realized that this could be another great application of derechology, my universal ethical framework based on Jewish ethics..

So I started a discussion with AskHillel, the AI I built using derechology principles, and after some back and forth we came up with a social media policy - heavily leaning on AI to implement - that would leave the posters, the readers and the social media companies themselves feeling much better than they do today.

The problem now is that there are no clear standards, there is no transparency, the social media users who are offended do not see any recourse that ever works and the people being censored don't have a clear idea why. The social media companies are inundated with requests for review that swamp them. The whole thing is a mess.

This can be solved.

First of all is the standards. These should be values, not detailed rules, as far as what is not allowed and what is potentially a problem. The values should follow the derechological baseline values: protection of life, dignity of people, mutual responsibility.

When a person posts something that is illegal, like child pornography, there is no choice: it must be stopped and reported.

But the vast majority of issues that are gray areas like phrases that can mean incitement to violence but can have innocuous interpretations as well, or negative stereotypes of groups of people, can be dealt with by AI before they are posted. The key is transparency. The AI can explain why the post might be a violation of the platform's values - and then offer for the user to reword it, or offer to rephrase it itself, until both sides approve the message and it can be posted. If the user disagrees and insists that it be posted as-is, the AI will allow it but will inform the user that the post will have a flag attached, and/or it will be limited in visibility.

This way the platform does not look like a censor but as a partner, assuming good faith and wanting to work together to craft a message that would not hurt others.

On the other side, if a user is offended by a post, the AI can explain why it was allowed, and discuss that with the user as well. The user might point out, for example, that the post used a dog-whistle that has a hidden racist meaning. In that case, the AI can log the issue and it can be referred to humans for further research. Otherwise, the AI can offer not only to block that poster for the user but also to block other posts that share the same issues.

Everything has to be upfront and honest. If the AI cannot assure the user that a human will review every case, it should say so, but also point out that (given user permission) the discussions can be logged and aggregated in case there are many people who are offended. If a user has a pattern of offensive posts, the AI can inform them that after a specific score is reached they may be suspended. But the reasons must always be clear.

This method is so much better than what is happening now. There are no black boxes - reasons are always available and the rules, and consequences, are public. The social media platform is not presented as authoritarian but as caring. The AIs would be polite and engaging. And the number of posts that require human review would go down greatly, helping the social media companies.

This is yet another way derechology can take a seemingly intractable problem and view it anew through a lens of values, responsibility and humility to help everyone get what they want.

_______________________

Here is the full suggested design:

Ethical Design Document: Universal Social Media Policy (Value-Aligned Framework)
Purpose: To implement a values-rooted, universal social media policy for a mainstream platform, balancing freedom of expression with moral responsibility. This framework draws from foundational ethical principles and is designed to be inclusive and applicable across diverse contexts.
I. Core Ethical Framework
Principle Function
Inherent Human Worth Every user has dignity. Harmful content must be addressed respectfully, not erased thoughtlessly.
Truth and Honesty All moderation actions must be transparent, fact-based, and subject to review.
Shared Responsibility Platforms are accountable for what they allow or amplify. Silence or inaction can cause real harm.
Duty to Prevent Harm Platforms must not stand by when foreseeable harm could occur.
No Enabling of Harmful Behavior Platforms must avoid features that promote outrage, bullying, or manipulation.
Public Integrity Mishandling speech ethics undermines trust in the platform and the communities it serves.
Humility in Automation AI systems must acknowledge their limitations. Every user has a right to appeal and clarity.
II. AI Moderation Logic
1. Harm Detection Thresholds AI flags content likely to cause harm based on:
Dehumanizing language
Incitement to violence or discrimination
Misleading or doctored content
Personal attacks, group slurs, or mockery of suffering
2. Real-Time Ethical Dialogue Before publishing, users receive a contextual message:
"This post may be perceived as harmful due to [reason]. Our ethical guidelines emphasize dignity and respectful communication. Would you like to revise, discuss, or continue as-is?"
Options:
"Edit with Suggestions"
"Discuss with AI"
"Post Anyway (Visibility May Be Reduced)"
"Learn More About This Warning"
If "Discuss with AI" is selected:
The AI engages in a structured, respectful dialogue to understand user intent.
The user may explain context, clarify meaning, or propose alternate wording.
Together, the AI and user may co-create a revised version that preserves intent while reducing risk of harm or misunderstanding.
At the end of the interaction, the user is asked:
"Would you like to anonymously share this dialogue with the platform's ethics team to help improve our policies?"
If accepted, the data is sent anonymized and used for policy refinement.
This supports ongoing ethical learning and accountability — a model of platform-level course correction.
3. Visibility Management If posted without revision:
Post is algorithmically downranked
Visible advisory label is attached
Viewers may choose to hide, report, or engage with content thoughtfully
4. Appeal and Oversight
All flagged content can be appealed
Human reviewers trained in ethics review each case
AI decision-making is transparent and available for scrutiny
5. Hard Threshold for Illegal or Dangerous Content Some content must be removed immediately and cannot be published under any condition. This includes:
Verified illegal material (e.g., child exploitation, terror propaganda, threats of violence)
Clear and imminent incitement to violence
Content explicitly designed to cause harm or violate platform or legal safety standards
For such content:
No option to edit or post is provided
AI issues a clear explanation and cites relevant policy or legal standard
Content and metadata are quarantined for audit purposes
If criminal in nature, the platform reports to appropriate authorities, even if the content was never posted. This includes mandatory reporting of child exploitation material, as required by law. In 2024 alone, over 36 million such reports were filed globally.
An appeal process exists, but the default action is immediate suppression and referral
III. Platform Integrity Measures
Transparency Portal: Public access to all moderation rules and the ethics behind them
Graceful Correction: Users can revise or delete content without punishment or shame
Propaganda Safeguards: Moderation training and data screening guard against misinformation, manipulation, and biased framing
Protection of Diverse Voices: Disagreement is welcome; only speech that causes harm is moderated
IV. Platform Message to Users
"Speech is power. Use it as if every person matters — because they do."
V. User Response to Perceived Harm
If a user encounters content they find offensive or harmful, they are offered a respectful pathway to respond:
Flag and Explain: The user may flag the content and describe — in their own words — why they found it troubling.
AI Acknowledgment and Clarification: The AI responds by explaining why the content was not automatically flagged, while respectfully acknowledging the user's experience.
Offer of Anonymous Logging: The user is asked:
"Would you like to anonymously share this flag and explanation with the platform's ethics team to inform future policy adjustments?"
If accepted, the data is anonymized and logged.
Users are informed that while not all cases receive individual review, all are weighted using transparent criteria and can influence platform-wide ethical refinement.
Personal Content Controls:
Users may choose to block the individual post, the user who posted it, or all content matching similar categories or patterns.
Settings are customizable, respectful, and clearly explained.
This process ensures both dignity and protection for those affected by harmful speech, fostering a culture of mutual responsibility and continuous learning.
Note: This policy expresses ethical reasoning and universal principles of responsible communication. It does not replace legal compliance or cultural sensitivity, but aims to create a safe and respectful digital public square.

Principle	Function
Inherent Human Worth	Every user has dignity. Harmful content must be addressed respectfully, not erased thoughtlessly.
Truth and Honesty	All moderation actions must be transparent, fact-based, and subject to review.
Shared Responsibility	Platforms are accountable for what they allow or amplify. Silence or inaction can cause real harm.
Duty to Prevent Harm	Platforms must not stand by when foreseeable harm could occur.
No Enabling of Harmful Behavior	Platforms must avoid features that promote outrage, bullying, or manipulation.
Public Integrity	Mishandling speech ethics undermines trust in the platform and the communities it serves.
Humility in Automation	AI systems must acknowledge their limitations. Every user has a right to appeal and clarity.